Gujarat High Court
Mohanbhai Pitambarbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 13 June, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16610 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MOHANBHAI PITAMBARBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH H SHAH(2142) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,2.1,2.2
MR JK SHAH, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 13/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Thakkar appearing for learned advocate Mr.Ashish Shah on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.J.K.Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent - State and learned advocate Mr.Meet Kakadiya appearing for learned advocate Mr.S.P.Majmudar on behalf of respondent no.3 on caveat.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioners challenge order Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined dated 09.07.2024 passed by the SSRD more particularly whereby the SSRD has set aside an order dated 17.06.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector which had resulted in an order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara which was set aside by the Deputy Collector being revived.
3. Facts, since they are checkered, are required to be elaborately mentioned for better appreciation of the dispute on hand.
3.1. It would appear that the land in question is land bearing survey no.120 situated at Village: Tandalja, Taluka District:
Vadodara admeasuring 4654 sq.mtrs. It appears that the land had been purchased by the grandfather of the petitioners from its owners vide registered sale deed dated 15.04.1968 and whereas, the said transaction had been mutated in the revenue record in the year 1968 itself vide entry no.975.
3.2. It appears that the grandfather of the petitioners had sold the land vide registered sale deed dated 30.03.1982 to respondents no.4 to 6 and whereas, entry with regard to the same had been mutated in the revenue record vide entry Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined no.1443 in the year 1982 itself. It appears that the respondents no.4 to 6 had sold the subject land to the husband of the respondent no.2 herein. It appears that in the year 1987, proceedings under Section 84(C) had been initiated by the Mamlatdar for breach of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and whereas, the Mamlatdar had dropped the proceedings vide order dated 18.01.1989 and the same had been confirmed by the Deputy Collector in Revision Case No.466/1989 which order had been confirmed by the GRT vide its order dated 11.02.2002 in TEN/BA/722/1993.
3.3. It appears that the respondents no.7 to 9 had, in the interregnum, filed civil suits being Regular Civil Suits No.380, 391 and 392 of 1998 against the father of the petitioners inter alia seeking a declaration that they are owners and occupiers of the land through adverse possession. It appears that the parties i.e. the father of the petitioners and the respondents no.7 to 9 had entered into a settlement on 08.09.1998 and whereas, respondents no.7 to 9 were declared as owners of the land by way of adverse possession and whereas, names of respondents no.7 to 9 came to be mutated in the revenue record vide mutation entries no.2468, 2469 and 2470 in the Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined year 1998.
3.4. In the meanwhile, though respondents no.4 to 6 had already sold the land in favour of the husband of the respondent no.2 herein, yet, they had entered into re-
conveyance deed dated 05.03.1999 in favour of the father of the petitioners and whereas, entry with regard to the same had been mutated in the revenue record in the year 1999 being entry no.2492. On the other hand, husband of the respondent no.2 sold the land in question to respondent no.3 vide registered sale deed dated 28.05.2001 and whereas, originally, while the deed had been impounded for deficit stamp duty and the same had been released on 16.01.2008. 3.5. It appears that the respondents no.7 to 9 had filed Regular Civil Suit No.924/2004 against respondents no.2 and 3 before the Civil Court at Vadodara for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of respondents no.2 and 3 herein. On the other hand, respondent no.2 had filed counterclaim for setting aside decree passed in RCS Nos. 380, 391 and 392 of 1998 more particularly for declaration that the said decree is not binding on respondent no.2. It would appear that the parties had settled the suit vide settlement deed dated Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined 22.06.2011 more particularly whereby respondents no.7 to 9 had admitted to sale deed of the respondents no.2 and 3 had also agreed that the order passed in RCS Nos.380, 391 and 392 of 1998 is null and void and also had waived their rights in favour of respondents no.2 and 3. It would also appear that respondents no.5 and 6 had filed RCS No.734/2006 against respondents no.2 and 3 more particularly for setting aside the sale deed in favour of respondent no.3 and whereas, the respondents no.5 and 6 had sought to withdraw the application preferred by them more particularly whereby they had accepted the sale deed in favour of respondents no.2 and 3. 3.6. It appears that while the husband of the respondent no.2 had initiated proceeding under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act more particularly for breach of Section 63 of the said Act as regards the consent decree dated 15.10.1998 on the ground that the respondents no.7 to 9 were not agriculturists. It appears that the petitioners had joined in the proceedings and whereas, vide order dated 17.05.2005, the Mamlatdar and ALT while holding that the husband of the respondent no.2 was owner of the property by virtue of the registered sale Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined deed dated 20.04.1983 had also held that transfer in favour of respondents no.7 to 9 was invalid more particularly since respondents no.7 to 9 were not agriculturists. It appears that three separate appeals had been preferred against the order dated 17.05.2005 by the petitioners, respondents no.4 to 6 and respondents no.7 to 9 and whereas, it appears that vide order dated 30.07.2007, the Deputy Collector had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and whereas, appeals preferred by the respondents no.4 to 6 and 7 to 9 were allowed inter alia observing that respondents no.7 to 9 were agriculturists.
3.7. The respondent no.2 had challenged the orders passed by the Deputy Collector before the GRT by preferring Revision Applications No.272 and 273 of 2007 and whereas the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and Mamlatdar had been set aside and the matter had been remanded back to the Mamlatdar more particularly to decide the maintainability of application by the husband of respondent no.2 and if the same was found to be maintainable, then to afford appropriate opportunity to government representatives. 3.8. It appears that Remand Case No.73/2012 had been Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined initiated by the Mamlatdar and ALT and whereas, the land was directed to be vested in the State Government vide order dated 15.03.2013 on the ground that respondent no.2 as well as respondents no.4 to 6 did not produce proof of being agriculturists. It appears that order of the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 15.03.2013 had been challenged by the petitioners, respondent no.2 as well as respondents no.4 to 6 by preferring three separate tenancy appeals and whereas, the Deputy Collector vide order dated 15.02.2016 had set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT and had remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar and ALT to ascertain the agriculturist status of respondent no.2 as well as respondents no.4 to 6. The Mamlatdar and ALT had conducted proceedings of the Remand Case (now numbered as) RC No.26/2016 and whereas, vide an order dated 29.01.2018, the Mamlatdar and ALT had held all the subsequent purchasers to be agriculturists and whereas, the Mamlatdar and ALT had withdrawn notices under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act for breach of Section 63.
3.9. It appears that order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT had been taken up in suo motu revision under Section 76(A) of Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined the Tenancy Act by the Deputy Collector and the issue had been remanded back to the Mamlatdar and ALT to examine the status of the respondent no.3 as an agriculturist. It would appear that order passed by the Deputy Collector had been challenged by the respondents no.2 and 3 herein before the GRT by preferring Revision Application No.TEN/BA/96/2020 and whereas, vide order dated 09.07.2024, the GRT had set aside the order of the Deputy Collector thereby confirming the order passed by the Mamlatdar. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order have approached this Court by way of this writ petition.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar for learned advocate Mr.Ashish Shah for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.J.K.Shah for the respondent State and learned advocate Mr.Meet Kakadiya for learned advocate Mr.S.P.Majmudar on behalf of respondent no.3 on caveat, have made extensive submissions on the aspect of maintainability of the petition as well as on the aspect of merits of the matter and whereas, since this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is not required to be entertained on the ground of locus of the petitioners to file Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined the present petition, therefore, arguments of the learned Counsels on the merits of the matter are not dealt with.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Kakadiya for respondent no.3 has raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the writ petition more particularly on the ground that proceedings under Section 84(C) could not be initiated upon an application by a person who had sold the land in question, yet, to this Court, the said argument is not appealing since Section 84(C) proceedings initiated by the Mamlatdar appears to be initiated at the behest of husband of respondent no.2 herein. While it may be that somewhere during the interregnum, there might be some application by the original petitioners, yet, it would appear that the original proceedings under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act had never been initiated at the behest of the petitioners herein. 5.1. On the other hand, to this Court, it would appear that the petitioners would not be entitled to prefer the present writ petition on the ground of acquiescence and waiver. The reason for such an observation being that while the petitioners seek to challenge the order of the GRT which had set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector, yet, the Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined proceedings before the Deputy Collector had not been initiated by either the petitioners or the respondents no.4 to 6 or 7 to 9. The Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara had passed order dated 29.01.2018 declaring respondents no.4 to 6, husband of respondent no.2 as well as respondent no.3 as agriculturists and had dropped the proceedings under Section 84(C). The said order could have been challenged by the petitioners under Section 74 of the Tenancy Act. It would appear that for approximately almost one year, petitioners did not question the order and whereas, the order of the Mamlatdar dated 29.01.2018 had been taken up in suo motu revision by the Deputy Collector exercising powers under Section 76(A) of the Tenancy Act, where order dated 17.06.2020 had been passed.
5.2. To this Court, it would appear that the petitioners not having questioned order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 29.01.2018, would be deemed to have acquiesced and waived their right with regard to the issue in question and whereas, but for the fortuitous circumstance of the Deputy Collector initiating suo motu proceedings with regard to the order in question, order dated 29.01.2018 would have Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined attained finality. To this Court, it would appear that petitioners having not questioned order of the Mamlatdar and ALT for almost period of one year, the petitioners would be deemed to waive their right as regards the issue in question and would be deemed to have acquiesced to the position as set out in the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT.
6. The other reason for which the petitioners would not be entitled to be heard is on the ground that the petitioners would not be having any locus standi to prefer the petition. It requires to be noted in this regard that the Deputy Collector vide order dated 17.06.2020, impugned before the SSRD, had remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar for ascertaining the agriculturist status of the respondent no.3 and respondent no.2 herein.
6.1. To this Court, it would appear that the resultant effect of the remand at its worst would be that the respondent no.3 and respondent no.2 may be declared as not being agriculturists or respondent no.3 may not be declared as agriculturist and the resultant effect would be that the land would either vest with the government or in case the parties agree to restore the original possession of the land, than the land would get Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined restored in the name of either the respondent no.2 herein or the respondents no.4 to 6 herein. Under no circumstance, the land would be vested with the petitioners herein. 6.2. That being the situation, petitioners are alien to the proceedings under Section 84(C) and whereas, they would not be deemed to be entitled to prefer the present petition more particularly since the petitioners could not claim the status of a person aggrieved. The petitioners having sold the land to respondents no.4 to 6 in the year 1982, would not now be entitled to question later transactions entered into by respondents no.4 to 6 and consequently by respondent no.2 whose husband had purchased the land from respondents no.4 to 6.
6.3. Reliance at this stage would be placed on observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Parshotambhai Dhanjibhai Patel vs. Shivganga Farms Pvt. Ltd. [Letters Patent Appeal No.490/2018, decided on 29.06.2018]. Paragraphs no. 5 to 19 being relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:-
"5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have also gone through the material Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined produced on record. It is required to be noted that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petitions only on the ground that the petitioners are not having locus to file the petitions and therefore the learned advocates appearing for the parties have requested that this Court may not examine the merits of the matter and consider the issue of locus of the petitioners only. We, therefore, are not examining the merits of the case.
6. From the material placed on record, it transpires that the sale deed was executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent no.1- company on
30.11.2009. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has received the amount of consideration. The petitioner has failed to point out from the record that the assurance was given by the respondent no.1 at the time of execution of the sale deed that the petitioners will be offered employment by the respondent no.1- company. The respondent no.2-Mamlatdar and ALT suo motu initiated the proceedings under the provisions of Section 84C of the Act for the alleged breach of Section 63 of the Act. The petitioners have never challenged the transaction entered into between the petitioners and the respondent no.1- company. Even after the order was passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, the petitioners have not challenged the said order by filing the appeal before the Deputy Collector. It is required to be noted that the Mamlatdar and ALT has directed that the amount of sale consideration received by the petitioners is to be forfeited and the said amount is to be recovered as arrears of land revenue from the petitioners. The petitioners did not challenge the order passed by the Deputy Collector also by filing revision application before the Tribunal. Thus, when the suo motu proceedings are initiated by the Mamlatdar and ALT, the orders were passed in the said proceedings, the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved person and are having no locus to challenge the order of the Tribunal.
7. The provisions of Section 63AD came to be Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined inserted by way of an amendment on 16.9.2015. However, the Mamlatdar and ALT passed an order on 15.10.2014 whereas the Deputy Collector has passed an order on 16.7.2015 i.e. prior to insertion of provision of Section 63AD of the Act. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the land in dispute can be regranted in favour of the petitioners is also misconceived.
8. In the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 12 as under:
"xxxx In order to have the locus standi to invoke certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioner should be an "aggrieved person". The expression "aggrieved person" denotes an elastic, and, to an extent an elusive concept. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest, and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him. Xxxxx"
9. We cannot dispute the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. However, the said decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
10. In the case of Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union (Regd.)Sindri and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 23 that the question whether the person has the locus to file a proceeding depends mostly and often on whether he possesses a legal right and that right is violated. But, in an appropriate case, it may become necessary in the changing awareness of legal rights and social obligations to take a broader view of the question of locus to initiate a proceeding, be it under Article 226 or under Article 32 of the Constitution. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the appellants- petitioners have failed to show that they are having Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined any legal right which has been violated and therefore this decision would also not render any assistance to the appellants-petitioners.
11. In the case of Dr.(Mrs.)Meera Massey (supra), the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was with regard to anomalies and illegalities in the procedure adopted by the University in making selection and regularizing the various posts in contradiction to the Acts, Statue and Ordinances. The concerned petitioner was Professor of History in the same University and he was genuinely concerned to rectify the wrongs without any personal animosity against anyone. The same was not for any person gain. It was neither politically motivated nor for publicity. In such facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the petition challenging the appointment of lecturer in the University, professor in the same University has locus standi to file the petition. However, this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case.
12. In the case of Keshabhai Panabhai Solanki (supra), the issue before the Division Bench was with regard to suspension of Sarpanch. The District Development Officer exercised the powers under Section 59 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993. On the facts of the said case, it was held that when subject matter raises issue about suitability of incumbent in public office and where order is challenged on the ground that it is contrary to law, it is not proper and just to allow locus standi to be an impediment. However, this decision would not render any assistance to the appellants in the facts of the present case.
13. In the case of Rameshbhai Ambalal Shah (supra), the Division Bench of this Court followed the decision rendered in the case of Navuji Lalji Vaghela (supra) and thereafter observed in paragraph 23 as under:
"23. Even if now, so far as the three classes as Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined explained by the Supreme Court are concerned, the only class which the appellants herein may be able to invoke is that the contract if it is illegal by statute in the interest of a particular class of persons of whom seller of the land is one, then as per this contention, the seller is relieved of the consequences of an illegal contract into which he has entered and the maxim of pari- delicto will not apply. We are afraid it is not as easy as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants to accept this because if restoration of possession is to be made at the instance of the seller of the property, then the seller will have to establish before the competent court that when the transaction of sale was entered into, it was disclosed by the seller to the purchaser that the permission of the competent authority before entering into the registered sale deed was required and inspite of the same, the purchaser has at his own risk agreed to purchase the land without permission of the competent authority. If the purchaser establishes that the seller of the property has withheld this information from the purchaser and has made the purchaser to believe that on account of sale transaction, the rights and titles of the seller are fully conveyed and he would become the absolute owner of the property, the court may decline the relief to the seller for declaring the sale as illegal or void. If the seller establishes that the seller himself as well as the purchaser, both were under the bonafide mistake that the permission of the competent authority for sale is not required, then in the given case, the court keeping in view the intent of the legislature may declare the transaction of sale as invalid. But, in those circumstances also the court may decline the equitable relief of restoring the possession back to the seller and even if the court decides to restore the possession back to the seller, the court may also put the seller on condition of repaying the sale consideration and the compensation also if circumstances so demand.Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined All these questions of facts can only be examined in the proceedings of civil suit."
14. In the case of Navuji Lalji Vaghela (supra), the Division Bench of this Court observed in paragraph 4 as under:
"4. We are of the view that the position of law is very clear. Firstly, to maintain a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, the party aggrieved must show that any of his fundamental rights or any other legal rights have been infringed and thereby the party is aggrieved by such infringement. Who can be said to be "a person aggrieved"? One of the meanings is that "a person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision", if that decision is materially adverse to him. Normally, one is required to establish that one has been denied or deprived of something to which one is legally entitled in order to make one "a person aggrieved". Again a person is aggrieved, if a legal burden is imposed upon him. Can it be said that the appellants would fall within the words "person aggrieved" or "a person who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interest". On the contrary, this is an appeal by persons who are trying to take advantage of their own wrong. The maxim: "Nulluys commondum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (No man can take advantage of his own wrong) is very much applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The maxim:
"Nullus commondum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (No man can take advantage of his own wrong) is one of the salient tenets of equity. The appellants cannot secure the assistance of a court of law for enjoying the fruit of their own wrong."
15. In the case of Abhesinh Mohansinh (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court has observed and held in paragraph 7 as under:
Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined "7. In my view, restoration is one of the option to avoid forfeiture of the land otherwise the land is forfeited/confiscated to the State Government even as per the order of the Mamlatdar. Further, so far as the authority under the Act is concerned, the Revenue Tribunal ultimately has concluded in favour of the purchaser respondents No.2 to 4 and the transaction is not held as void or illegal and the proceedings initiated by the Mamlatdar and the Assistant Collector thereafter and the order passed by the Collector thereafter are quashed and set aside by the Revenue Tribunal which itself is the authority under the Act. Therefore, when the authority under the Act has held the transaction as valid, it hardly lies in the mouth of the seller who is party to the transaction to contend that the transaction be declared invalid, more particularly, when he has enjoyed the benefit of the transaction by pocketing the consideration long back and he has lost the remedy even by filing civil suit or declaration that the transaction is null and void or illegal. The remedy of getting back the land which is not permissible directly, cannot be allowed to be done indirectly by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the distinction as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioner is ill-
founded and is of no help to the petitioner."
16. In the case of Patel Ratilal Maganbhai (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held in paragraph 15 as under:
"15. When we considered the aforesaid submissions of Mr.Shelat seeking declaration that the transaction of sale is void in a writ petition and that the possession of the land should be restored back to the appellants, Mr.A.J.Patel appearing for the respondent No.3 had drawn our attention to the judgment of this court in the case of Smt.Ratnaprabhabai, D/o Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined Hirojirao Naranrao Mane vs M/s Tulsidas V.Patel reported in 23(2) GLR 213 where in the question of exercise of powers by the court under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order of the lower authority rejecting to set aside the sale on account of permission not obtained of the competent authority and initiating proceedings under section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act was considered by this court and this court held that "the petitioner who is a transferor and party to sale would never be said to be aggrieved party which would entitle him to carry the matter in appeal when the State has chosen not to challenge the order of the Mamalatdar under the said Act." It was further observed that "the position of such petitioner who has pocketed the money long back and is trying to catch at a straw and is practically indulging in the policy of dog in the manger by seeing that the hanging sword of the litigation lingers on so that at some future time the purchaser may come round and may give some added financial advantage to the petitioner by way of bargain and if the present proceedings are kept pending such oblique intention of the petitioner may get fructified". It was observed that "the court obviously can not be a party to such a design." At this stage, Mr.Shelat had tried to distinguish the judgment in the aforesaid case of this court by contending that it was a case under section 84C of the Act where the purchaser is not going to get back the land and the land would vest with the State Government. However, we do not agree with the distinction sought to be made by Mr.Shelat because the position would remain the same that this court would not be a party to the malafide design on the part of the sellor who has voluntarily entered into sale transaction and has pocketed money long back and has allowed the transaction to continue for a period of more than 16 years."
17. From the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined Court, it is clear that when the seller has pocketed the amount of consideration and if he has lost the remedy even by filing civil suit or declaration that the transaction is null and void and illegal, the remedy of getting back the land which is not permissible directly, cannot be allowed to be done indirectly by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is further clear that the concerned petitioner who is transferor and party to sale would never be said to be aggrieved party which would entitle him to carry the matter in appeal when the state has chosen not to challenge the order. It is further clear from the aforesaid decisions that to maintain the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the party aggrieved must show that any of his fundamental rights or his legal rights have been infringed and thereby the party is aggrieved by such infringement. What is meaning of person aggrieved is also discussed.
18. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid decisions, if the facts as stated hereinabove are examined, we are of the view that the respondent no.2-Mamlatdar and ALT suo motu initiated the proceedings under the provisions of Section 84 of the Act for alleged breach of Section 63 of the Act. The petitioners have never challenged the sale transactions entered between them and the respondent no.1-company. The order passed by Mamlatdar and ALT was not challenged by the petitioners before the Deputy Collector. Similarly, the order passed by the Deputy Collector was not challenged by the petitioners before the Tribunal. The petitioners have not initiated any civil proceedings for cancellation of sale deeds nor they have initiated any revenue proceedings for cancellation of mutation entries made in the revenue record. The petitioners have pocketed the amount of sale consideration.
19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined committed any error which requires interference in these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. Consequently, all the connected civil applications also stand dismissed."
7. Considering the facts of the present case from the perspective of the observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench, it would appear that the petitioners have not questioned the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 29.01.2018 before the Deputy Collector. The proceedings before the Deputy Collector were suo motu in nature. Again, at its worst, as noted hereinabove, even if the transaction in favour of respondent no.3 is declared as invalid, then the land would either vest with the State Government or revert back to respondent no.2. On the other hand, if the sale in favour of respondent no.2 is also declared as invalid, then the land may revert back to the State Government or to respondents no.4 to
6. It thus would appear that under no circumstances, the land would revert back to the present petitioners. It would thus appear that in addition to the petitioners not having a locus standi to file the present writ petition, the petitioners could not be treated to be persons aggrieved by the order passed by the GRT.
Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16610/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025 undefined
8. Having regard to such a position, to this Court, the present writ petition being misconceived, is disposed of as rejected in limini.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Bhoomi Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:08:19 IST 2025